The events of the ''Arab world''...

[Tremulant]

Lulz. Yes, that clearly is a mistake. A mistake mind you, not a deception. Clearly, a breakdown in communication has caused footage which was actually on the Delhi Protests has been mistaken for footage of Tripoli.

Why would you think this was on purpose? Surely, if they're going to lie there are better ways to do it than showing footage of clearly the wrong flag. If they knew where the footage actually came from they would know the flag would give them away.

then again, BBC reported building 10 i think it was of the world trade center falling when it was clearly visible in the background.

I imagine they reported that at a time when they had loads of time for fact checking and there was nothing troubling and fast moving going on in the world.

to top it off, at least half of americans polled could not find iraq on a map.  i dont imagine the UK would be much better off.

It's the one labelled Iraq, though tbh, with british literacy rates what they are, that may not help much.

sure it could be a mistake, but this is a major news outlet.  they get paid lots of money to not make mistakes, and if something like that made it past QC without correction within the next five minutes or so (for a broadcast, next printing for a periodical) leads me to believe that someone in upper management wanted just such a mistake.

You do realise that this is bloody BBC Breakfast news, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that such a cock-up would occur there, not exactly serious business(as make obvious by Bill Turnbull's presence on the news sofa(sofa's are fast replacing newsdesks as seating places for serious news, i hear)).

i take international news with a grain of salt.  unlike domestic news, it has to pass through two layers of propaganda.

I take it FOX news is trustworthy domestic news? Why do you trust US news agencies when you're convinced that they're controlled by the government(in the past the government's been controlled by newscorp here, rather than the other way around) and that both parties are lying to you, wouldn't foreign news seem potentially more trustworthy in those circumstances?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfNYFlbr3_4

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

Lulz. Yes, that clearly is a mistake. A mistake mind you, not a deception. Clearly, a breakdown in communication has caused footage which was actually on the Delhi Protests has been mistaken for footage of Tripoli.

Why would you think this was on purpose? Surely, if they're going to lie there are better ways to do it than showing footage of clearly the wrong flag. If they knew where the footage actually came from they would know the flag would give them away.

then again, BBC reported building 10 i think it was of the world trade center falling when it was clearly visible in the background.

I imagine they reported that at a time when they had loads of time for fact checking and there was nothing troubling and fast moving going on in the world.

to top it off, at least half of americans polled could not find iraq on a map.  i dont imagine the UK would be much better off.

It's the one labelled Iraq, though tbh, with british literacy rates what they are, that may not help much.

sure it could be a mistake, but this is a major news outlet.  they get paid lots of money to not make mistakes, and if something like that made it past QC without correction within the next five minutes or so (for a broadcast, next printing for a periodical) leads me to believe that someone in upper management wanted just such a mistake.

You do realise that this is bloody BBC Breakfast news, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that such a cock-up would occur there, not exactly serious business(as make obvious by Bill Turnbull's presence on the news sofa(sofa's are fast replacing newsdesks as seating places for serious news, i hear)).

i take international news with a grain of salt.  unlike domestic news, it has to pass through two layers of propaganda.

I take it FOX news is trustworthy domestic news? Why do you trust US news agencies when you're convinced that they're controlled by the government(in the past the government's been controlled by newscorp here, rather than the other way around) and that both parties are lying to you, wouldn't foreign news seem potentially more trustworthy in those circumstances?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfNYFlbr3_4

the man reading the card with his lines on them had but look behind him to see he was giving a false report.  he had the standard issue "newsman's earpiece", a producer could have quickly corrected him.  this was the third and final building to fall that day. 

i'm assuming "finding on a map" precludes the use of labels.  hardly a test of geographical knowledge if it's open book, right?

the morning news?  not a report on the scene of breaking news?  so they had time to fix so glaring a mistake?  or perhaps, like before, they are playing off of the audience's ignorance?  hoping to slip it past folks while they are still waking up?  there are many reasons to lie to the general western public about what's going on in lybia.  i mean, they've been lying to us about lybia since at least the late 70's.  both your news agencies and government and mine.

fox news is not a news outlet, but entertainment.  like the weekly world news, or the sun.  it is a video tabloid offering mountains of opinion for each grain of truth.  i dont trust ANY news agency anywhere, really.  i know where they get their stories.  AP and routers.  i know who owns those "news services".

i also know the best lies have a kernal of truth to them.  i'm familliar with the language used to hide things in news reports... the language of the politically correct.  i had to learn it myself to use it in reports i would file when i was in the military.  i know the reality behind the phrase "neutralized 4 soft targets" and "four soldiers were wounded by an IED".

and so i read any report that comes to me with a grain of salt.  i consider the source.  i think about who profits from the report. 

nux..... you are incredibly naive if you believe the bbc does not deal in propaganda.  there is no single mass-media outlet on the planet that does not truck with one form of propaganda or another.

[Nux]

It's "Libya".

I don't think you've actually watched much news from the BBC. I think you've based your opinions of it off a couple of mistakes that were weeded out by someone trying to validate thier point of view. Don't get me wrong, the BBC makes mistakes and deals a fair bit of sensationalism in some annoying ways (particularly the journalists in charge of the BBC News website). I just think it's rather silly that you think they're giving out these big lies to aid our government when they always leap at the nearest chance to defame it, or even itself.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

It's "Libya".

I don't think you've actually watched much news from the BBC. I think you've based your opinions of it off a couple of mistakes that were weeded out by someone trying to validate thier point of view. Don't get me wrong, the BBC makes mistakes and deals a fair bit of sensationalism in some annoying ways (particularly the journalists in charge of the BBC News website). I just think it's rather silly that you think they're giving out these big lies to aid our government when they always leap at the nearest chance to defame it, or even itself.

your assessment is wrong nux.  i've seen my fair share of bbc news broadcasts.  in particular, the asian bbc department and AFN (the armed forces network, a militarily run "channel") were my only links to the outside world for a couple of years.

dont you see? the bbc leaping to defraud the government is a form of propaganda.  just like a human body, a political body sometimes develops cancerous growths that attack the body.  when some big scandal rears about, everyone is quick to lay the blame on the doorstep of traditional enemies and pet crusades.  think about how often some official or another leaks information as a source who "must remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak on the matter", or something similar?

[Nux]

I'm aware that media outlets can vend propoganda. It can even be a psuedo-voluntary thing where people don't care so long as they hear what they want to hear. I'm aware that some things can only become news when they're out already anyway (The News of the World has given us an example of that recently). Please bear in mind that you don't have to explain to me how, generally, lies can become public information. I've read my fair share of history.

The matter at hand is whether the BBC is dealing in lies for the benefit of the government. To decide upon this, we first need to clear up a few problematic areas.

Firstly, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It is quite possible that entire branches of the BBC are markedly distinct and that we're both basing our views of a global organisation on small parts of it. Ideally that wouldn't be an issue and proper management would turn it all into a united whole, but I fully expect that some parts of it would fail to demonstrate the qualities of others, not least because they are broadcasting to different peoples with different ideals. For this first point, I suggest we acknowledge that we may have gained different views of the organisation, but so long as we are talking about the organisation as a whole, any part of it failing to meet our standards is a failing on the part of the whole.

Secondly, we need to know what determines a lie. Do we mean spouting anything as truth which in fact is not? I pressume we mean intentional deception. We need to establish how subtle a lie has to be before it stops being a lie. For this I would advise that we default to 'Hanlon's razor':

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

"Adequately" being the operative word. We shouldn't, as you fear I am doing, just attribute everything to accident. Yet if it get's to the point where the person might as well be an idiot, then to all intents and purposes surely they ARE an idiot and NOT a mastermind. If I'm shooting myself in the foot by doing this and playing into their highly subtle plot, then I'm happy for them to continue plotting so subtley because until they plot any harder, no sane person should notice the difference. If things do change, but slowly, we have the benefit of hindsight (history books) to know exactly when that happens, no matter how slowly it comes about.

Do we agree on this much?

[Tremulant]

When we've got one party accusing the other of naivety whilst displaying considerable paranoia and providing precious little evidence of the conspiracy they feel is in place, it's awfully tricky to have a sensible discussion.

If I'm shooting myself in the foot by doing this and playing into their highly subtle plot, then I'm happy for them to continue plotting so subtley because until they plot any harder, no sane person should notice the difference.

Quite.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

nux, it is not always a government or even government agency that pushes propaganda from major "news outlets".

tell the truth, i think that's actually kind of rare.  again i point out that almost every news story in every major "publication" (also counting broadcast news and their internet mirrors) almost exclusively draws their stories from AP and routers.  i do not trust these entities because of their owners.

call me paranoid if you like, but i understand military propaganda operations.  i've read the field manual on the subject after all.  it is impossible to miss the tactics and techniques described in the manual being used by civilian news agencies today.  call me conservative, but i tend to plan for the worst.

what is a lie?  it is the absence of truth.  this absence can be from omission, from twisting of the fact, all manner of things.  a definition is an unforgiving thing.  say i tell you i'll meet you at 6pm at central square.  i dont make the appointment but then tell you something came up.  no matter what excuse i give, my original statement "i will meet with you at 6pm in central square" is a lie.  despite any intentions of mine to make it there, despite best efforts, despite how much i may have wanted to go.  none of it changes, my original statement was a lie.

that's a little peripheral, though.

if the newsmen are idiots, that does not change a thing.  either by maliciousness or idiocy, they bring the same reaction from me.  i do not trust them.

tremulant, i've said nothing of conspiracy.  i have been speaking of propaganda.  propaganda requires no conspiracy.  i do not believe there is some shadowy organization pulling the strings on the world stage.  i think that the rich and powerful expend economic and political capitol for their own purposes, their own benefit. 

it's also hard to have a sensible discussion when your position gets you dismissed as a "kook" out of hand.

seriously, i have no idea why my lack of trust in the bbc, and suspicion of ulterior motives seems to have precluded sensible discussion on the matter.  naivety is no insult, it just expresses a lack of "worldlyness", much the same way that "ignorant" denotes being uninformed, rather than the lack of the capacity to learn.

but please, dont let me change your opinion of the bbc.  i doubt i could change the opinions of both of you anyway, i'm not wearing a suit on tv, i am only your peer, i cannot have anything of import to say.

[Tremulant]

I do not implicitly trust the ramblings of well dressed individuals on rolling news channels, be they BBC operated or otherwise(to be honest, i think i tend to prefer Channel4 when it comes to TV news, but my overall preference is for Radio(4)), i just don't tend to look for propaganda where i see obvious mistakes, especially when i have trouble perceiving the value of those "mistakes" as propaganda.

Apologies if you found my suggestion that you may believe there are conspiracies underlying the generation of propaganda in news agencies offensive, I just happen to find the idea of misinformation flowing out of the BBC without anyone blowing the whistle to be a little conspiratorial to begin with.

Do feel free to explain why it makes more sense for the 911 report(i assumed, incorrectly, that you felt there was a conspiracy at work here) and Tripoli/Delhi footage mix-up incident to be deliberate misinformation than simple mistakes, i'm perfectly willing to listen when reasonable evidence is put forward, just don't expect leaps of faith.

[Garion]

i'm not wearing a suit on tv, i am only your peer, i cannot have anything of import to say.

I hope you didn't JUST learn that. On a more serious note, I suggest anyone who wants interesting and honest news to watch RT (Russia Today). They actually say what's happening in the world (Libya, US economic, etc..). A lot of their videos can be found on youtube.

Here's a really good video about the presstitutes (also talks about other important things) : http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Gerald-Celente-la-maison-des-presstitutes-7923.html

Maybe you'll like it, RAK.

[Nux]

Do feel free to explain why it makes more sense for the 911 report(i assumed, incorrectly, that you felt there was a conspiracy at work here) and Tripoli/Delhi footage mix-up incident to be deliberate misinformation than simple mistakes, i'm perfectly willing to listen when reasonable evidence is put forward, just don't expect leaps of faith.

^That. I'm sorry if I pressumed you were talking about the government, but I am quite intrigued as to who else you could have been talking about protecting itself by fooling the masses.

dont you see? the bbc leaping to defraud[defame] the government is a form of propaganda.  just like a human body, a political body sometimes develops cancerous growths that attack the body.  when some big scandal rears about, everyone is quick to lay the blame on the doorstep of traditional enemies and pet crusades.  think about how often some official or another leaks information as a source who "must remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak on the matter", or something similar?

And of course intention matters. The trouble comes from not knowing what was intended, and if you're pressuming it was all planned then that causes even more trouble.

[Tremulant]

*snip*
On a more serious note, I suggest anyone who wants interesting and honest news to watch RT (Russia Today). They actually say what's happening in the world (Libya, US economic, etc..).

On a more serious note, really? I've watched RT a fair bit and immediately assumed you were back in your capacity as resident troll, yes it's interesting, but honest? If any news network can be accused of peddling government propaganda it's RT.
RT are currently suggesting that young boys in libya have suddenly become fascinated with toy guns(because everyone knows that children don't like toy guns unless exposed to armed uprisings), which is almost certainly NATO's fault, there's footage of kids playing with toy guns and everything, what's more, NATO aren't pulling out immediately, evil NATO, think of the children!

[Garion]

*snip*
On a more serious note, I suggest anyone who wants interesting and honest news to watch RT (Russia Today). They actually say what's happening in the world (Libya, US economic, etc..).

On a more serious note, really? I've watched RT a fair bit and immediately assumed you were back in your capacity as resident troll, yes it's interesting, but honest? If any news network can be accused of peddling government propaganda it's RT.
RT are currently suggesting that young boys in libya have suddenly become fascinated with toy guns(because everyone knows that children don't like toy guns unless exposed to armed uprisings), which is almost certainly NATO's fault, there's footage of kids playing with toy guns and everything, what's more, NATO aren't pulling out immediately, evil NATO, think of the children!

I don't care if you call me a troll, but atleast don't come up with a poor understanding of the situation. As a matter of fact, I'm not saying I give value to everything in RT, I'm saying they actually give a good portrait of what's happening. Also, I didn't see the report you're telling me, but I do believe that if kids from a country develop a FASCINATION (that's a pretty important word) for toy guns, probably for what these toys represent, and that this fascination came just as their country was being attacked, then there's an obvious link. I don't see what's wrong with saying that a war (that makes less and less sense if we check the reasons for it, and the veracity of these reasons) has changed the mind of kids. RT are reporting something interesting for those willing to understand the situation, it's another coherent part of the situation of today's Libya.

[janev]

On a more serious note, I suggest anyone who wants interesting and honest news to watch RT (Russia Today). They actually say what's happening in the world (Libya, US economic, etc..). A lot of their videos can be found on youtube.

I'm not saying I give value to everything in RT, I'm saying they actually give a good portrait of what's happening.

RT is no more unbiased than any other source. What it lacks in western bias it makes up in Russian bias. The name itself says it all, Russian Times, you know as in Russian. If you think that is honest and accurate you are being naive. Russia is a cesspool of corruption. You might not be able to smell it from way over there on the other side of the pond. What money will buy in the west, money and brute force will buy in the east. The last 5 stories on RT include something about German Nazis, a Russian parade showing off how awesome they are and video about Russia not approving of the West taking all the Arab oil. 

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

sure it could be a mistake, but this is a major news outlet.  they get paid lots of money to not make mistakes, and if something like that made it past QC without correction within the next five minutes or so (for a broadcast, next printing for a periodical) leads me to believe that someone in upper management wanted just such a mistake.

i cannot give you the reasons behind it, but this is why i do not believe it to be a mistake.  perhaps both my local paper and news station have more journalistic integrity than the BBC and they correct and acknowledge such mistakes by the time of the next printing or broadcast, if not immediately in the case of broadcast footage.

i do not claim to know why such mistakes are made, if indeed they are mistakes.  i just say that it sounds fishy.  either they are depending on the ignorance of their audience to mask mistakes, or are trying to skew popular opinion by distributing misleading images... again counting on ignorance to aid the effort.

again i point out, as was pointed out to me, the BBC is one of the largest news outlets in the world.  i would assume as such it would use considerable resources to prevent such mistakes from happening.  erroneous reporting erodes the audience's faith in the source, eventually costing ratings.  this will lead to the death of the news source.  the only thing that i know of that would cause a corporation to risk it's "death" is the promise of very large short-term gain.

there's a little lesson in life that has aided my survival many times over the years.  it is simple - "plan for the worst".  if indeed it was just a simple mistake, then fine, i've been worrying over nothing.  fact of the matter is, it seems more to me that some agency paid off the bbc to broadcast a misleading mistake.

recently, i've been reading about how libya is a different sort of rebellion that what has been the case recently in that part of the world.  i cant find the article at the moment, but it was something to the effect that libya's rebellion was made up of the people who happen to be "enemies of the west" rather than the friendly doctors and lawyers that overthrew the government of egypt, for example.  showing a band of these friendly rebels celebrating victory makes a much more lasting impression than roving gangs of thugs attempting to remove the puppet we put into power in the first place.  that's my take on it anyway.

I hope you didn't JUST learn that.

no, i usually just keep it under my hat, though.  sometimes it does get irritating that i seemingly am dismissed because i am not a talking head on a news-opinion show.  i try to be a bit more rational and skeptical compared to the majority of people i come into contact with who hold the same opinions on world events that i do.  i find that you'll never change anyone's mind if you browbeat them about how ignorant they are, or destroy all of their worldview all at once.  much like an international banker, i find it better to work incrementally at changing the opinions of those around me.

also, about alex jones:  look up his connections to zionists.  recently i've discovered a lot about AJ, he's a knight of malta, apparently.  and owned by ABC.  gerald celente seems to be an allright guy, but then again, he's also a bit too eager to profit from the whole situation.

then again, AJ does bring up some good news to "public" attention, you've just got to learn how to filter out all of his opinion he spins onto the stories.  on the other hand, you can say that about most news outlet, save the ones that specialize in "entertainment news" like which celebrity ate what for which meal.  there's almost always a kernel of truth buried amid all that opinion and spin, and usually hidden in legalese or politically correct language.

[Garion]

RT is no more unbiased than any other source.

First of all, it is obvious that you're being inaccurate, as it is just stupid to say all of the medias are on the same level. Second of all, RT gives interview to people who talk about reality, and they usually talk at a good level of thoughts, compared to most western medias, so don't talk about RT as it was closed on the views of those inside. RT is much better for you to listen to, if you wish to understand what's going on right now, than most western medias, if not all.

Also, because I know you'll make the error (you don't have a strong grasp on logic) : it doesn't mean RT is the perfect media, it doesn't mean they're always right and free of corruption. It's just more honest and better on most important points than many medias around here.

What it lacks in western bias it makes up in Russian bias. The name itself says it all, Russian Times, you know as in Russian. If you think that is honest and accurate you are being naive.

This one made me laugh. Again, you're being naive. First of all, you're basically saying the Occident oligarchs have the same interest as RT for giving the right information about what's happening in Libya, which isn't true. Occident oligarchs are better to lie on the subject of Libya and on economy, while RT is giving the opportunity to people who aren't given the right to talk in the medias of our free society, because these persons have been fighting the Empire (Yep kid, the word is launched).  I also hope you don't base your view on RT simply because it's Russian, that'd be a terrible way of reasoning. You know, it's not because American's politics are totally corrupted and soulless that every Americans are. I'd like to add that I was suggesting RT for their reports on the events of Libya and on the economical questions. Finally, I don't think you know a lot about RT, because it's Russia Today, not Russia Times. It is you who isn't accurate and naive, or maybe you're not being honest.[/quote]

Russia is a cesspool of corruption. You might not be able to smell it from way over there on the other side of the pond. What money will buy in the west, money and brute force will buy in the east.

At this point you have lost all credibility on the field, but I'll still answer you just for the kick of it. First of all, I'm happy to see you took your course of Russia's society and politics in Rocky. This silly idea that in the United-States, country of the nobles, the only form of corruption is money, while in Russia, necessarily, corruption HAS to be worse! It is money and brute force, them barbarians! No, really, simply saying that RT is more corrupted and more manipulated right now than most western medias is stupid. As I said, RT are giving the opportunity to people who have alarmed many people of what was going on, they have kept a certain integrity with reality, that is the least I can give them, and they probably deserve more.[/quote]
 

The last 5 stories on RT include something about German Nazis, a Russian parade showing off how awesome they are and video about Russia not approving of the West taking all the Arab oil. 

[Garion]

I hope you didn't JUST learn that.

no, i usually just keep it under my hat, though.  sometimes it does get irritating that i seemingly am dismissed because i am not a talking head on a news-opinion show.  i try to be a bit more rational and skeptical compared to the majority of people i come into contact with who hold the same opinions on world events that i do.  i find that you'll never change anyone's mind if you browbeat them about how ignorant they are, or destroy all of their worldview all at once.  much like an international banker, i find it better to work incrementally at changing the opinions of those around me.

also, about alex jones:  look up his connections to zionists.  recently i've discovered a lot about AJ, he's a knight of malta, apparently.  and owned by ABC.  gerald celente seems to be an allright guy, but then again, he's also a bit too eager to profit from the whole situation.

then again, AJ does bring up some good news to "public" attention, you've just got to learn how to filter out all of his opinion he spins onto the stories.  on the other hand, you can say that about most news outlet, save the ones that specialize in "entertainment news" like which celebrity ate what for which meal.  there's almost always a kernel of truth buried amid all that opinion and spin, and usually hidden in legalese or politically correct language.

Personally I'm not trying to convince anyone, but I am bringing what I consider to be true (to some extent) on a public place. And I will add, on the forum of a game that I like and loved. It is a way to give this game a little something, as it gave me a lot. And if it can help a few people around here I'll be glad, just passing the info is a good thing to do in these dark (dark as in it is less and less clear, things are hidden from us, I'm not trying to sound deep*) times.

*for bad mouths

As for what you said on AJ, I agree with you on a couple of things, he brings good stuff but on some subjects he might not always be honest, right or defending the good thing.

[Nux]

About the BBC mistake, I'll make this clear, because the post I made before seems to have been largely ignored: Do you really think they would attempt to deceive viewers about the state in Libya by running footage of people celebrating FROM A STORY THEY WERE AIRING AT THAT SAME POINT IN TIME?

Until I see some credible evidence of bias in the BBC, I'll continue to view it with the esteem it has so far earned from me.

All the rest of this debate is just conjecture and opinion and I'm afraid I'm tired of reading assertions with zero reasoning given. At least RAKninja-Decepticon seems to put thought into his judgements, despite my disagreeing with his conclusions. It seems like Garion on the other hand just professes who is evil and who is good arbitrarily and expects us to just take his word for it, or the word of one of the few who agree with him.

It's possible to convince someone of something, if you can make it tally with the other facts in their head. It's also possible that the person has collected a load of junk in their head, called them facts and there's no hope of them believing any different.

[janev]

So in that wall of text you managed to:
Put up some straw men.
Draw false conclusions about my first hand knowledge of Russia.
Point out a typo.
Totally ignore my valid point about what kind of garbage makes it to RT.
Try to e-Insult me.

while RT is giving the opportunity to people who aren't given the right to talk
in the medias of our free society.

You are obviously an idiot because everyone has the right to speak in our free society*. Just like everyone else has the right to tune out from the shit they are shoveling.

You are shoveling too much shit for me to stick around. That probably has something to do with the fact your soul is dog shit. Time to move on to more productive pursuits. Thank you Nux, Tremulant and RAK for the thoughtful posts.

*If you had ever been to Russia you would know that is not the case there

[Garion]

Nux, how many times did I tell you that even the NTC leader admitted it was purely made for propaganda? You might aswell continue to enjoy every bits of BBC's reports you can get.

This is Seif al Islam talking : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs

that's just one video out of other videos that show the same thing, and this guy is the son of Gadaffi. There were also some videos of the NTC leader who also said it was just propaganda.

I gave enough reasons on the past topics as to why there would be lies, except you said it was all bullshit. I gave you political reasons, historical reasons, economical reasons, and many more. You just refused everything, I'm not trying to convince anyone and I said it already. Some people, like RAK, have a certain knowledge of what's happening. He's not a zombie, and he understand there's something wrong in this world, plus he probably reads more than Wikipedia's pages. This is why I can communicate with him, because I don't have to explain him why the governments and the medias aren't white knights, or that those holding the economy are bad persons, and that they can easily crush anyone who opposes to their banks. Hell, if you are PROUD of BBC, to me it just means your conscience level is really low. I said it on the other thread, some people aren't in good position to understand what's going on right now. It is possible for me to convince you, except that you're so closed, that it'd take too much effort.

As for Janev, my only hope with you is that you're not too old.

 

[Tremulant]

Nux, how many times did I tell you that even the NTC leader admitted it was purely made for propaganda? You might aswell continue to enjoy every bits of BBC's reports you can get.

This is Seif al Islam talking : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs

that's just one video out of other videos that show the same thing, and this guy is the son of Gadaffi. There were also some videos of the NTC leader who also said it was just propaganda.

Ok, before i give up on the discussion completely, how is any of this related to proof that the BBC's misrepresentation of crowds milling around waving indian flags as footage of the libyan people in tripoli was intentional propaganda rather than a stupid mistake? Can you provide any of these reports from RT's english language service at the very least?

RAK, i realise you must have reasons to believe the things that you do, i'm not going to try and stop you, but do recognise that Garion may not be entirely sincere, it's possible that he's using you as nothing more than a trolling aid, how do you, personally, feel about the trustworthiness of RT and the russian government, i'm curious.

Sorry, what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs#t=4m16s

[Qrntz]

Russia

honesty

The events of the ''Arab world''

Those just don't go together.

[Nux]

This is Seif al Islam talking : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs

Breaking News: A spokesperson for a collapsing government spreads FUD.

It's funny how it was me that you allied with in that previous thread because I was the only one willing to talk to you on a level footing about your claims and give you the benefit of the doubt where I could. Why is it that as soon as someone agrees with you you're their best friend, and soon as they disagree they're a blind fool?

And why are you not trying to convince anyone? Surely, that's the only worthwhile reason you could have for posting here. Even if you don't manage to convince anyone, just trying is enough to organise the facts in your own head better.

I never outright dismissed your claims. I've given alternate explanations to anything that wasn't pure speculation.

Also, don't be so quick to assume people in power will abuse it. Being deceitful is a winning strategy up to the point you get caught by those you are fooling, whereas if you are in a position to be honest and you adhere to the truth there's no such risk, plus reality can only prove you right. I'm not saying people don't still take the risk. For example a collapsing government might lie through it's teeth because it no longer has anything to lose and eveything to gain from it. I'm just saying that honesty is a good strategy too and I have no reason to believe that the BBC doesn't generally follow such an honest philosophy.

Another problem here is that I can ramble about this and pretty much anything for ages but there always comes a point in discussion where I get tired and emotionally detached and I'm trying to keep myself from boring you with that. I think I'll take some time off from this thread again to liven my enthusiasm for it, or else abandon it altogether.

[Garion]

Breaking News: A spokesperson for a collapsing government spreads FUD.

Seif al Islam is Gaddafi's son, he's not a simple spokesperson, and he isn't the only source available to tell you the NTC chief lied. My link about the NTC chief was mostly to prove that the western medias just accepted to pass any informations, and I also wanted to show you a form of propaganda. If you remember well, in the first video I posted on this topic, which is found in my first post, Thierry Meyssan (A true journalist who almost got killed by NATO, and who you said, blindly, that he was doing buck sensationalism) said the NATO would try to put in place a National Transition Council in place, which they did. Then, I gave you two more informations, I said the western medias were passing the propaganda, and that this propaganda was also shown on BBC. My own certitude that this is propaganda is because the NTC chief himself affirmed it was. If I didn't give the link of his affirmation, it is because the translation is in french, and because the video seemed to go up and down (for some mysterious reasons). [/quote]

It's funny how it was me that you allied with in that previous thread because I was the only one willing to talk to you on a level footing about your claims and give you the benefit of the doubt where I could. Why is it that as soon as someone agrees with you you're their best friend, and soon as they disagree they're a blind fool?

First of all, I never allied with you on the other thread. I'm not here to do alliances. If I talked to you, it was because you weren't as stupid as Meisseli, Tremulant and Pazuzu (to simply name these three). Also, I don't become best friend with people simply because they're agreeing with me, I just wanted to talk about these events to some persons, this is what I cared for. So if you felt like I was being friendly with you only because I was willing to talk with you and bring you some ideas (that aren't speculation), then you are wrong. But of course, in such individualist societies, I understand that you could come to this conclusion.

And why are you not trying to convince anyone? Surely, that's the only worthwhile reason you could have for posting here. Even if you don't manage to convince anyone, just trying is enough to organise the facts in your own head better.

Don't try to think for me, you'll be wrong on most tryout. As I said, I am not trying to convince anyone, I'm trying to bring interesting informations that I find credible (for more than one reason, mind you). My reason for posting here, as I said, is not to convince anyone, but maybe if some of you remind what has been said here, or the essential, maybe your eyes will open in time. And maybe some of you are already initiates who could make a good use of these infos.

And, to be honest, most of you are fools, and if you can't understand a simple element such as war in Libya, it's obvious that you won't understand the reason truly explain this war, because war in Libya is just a part of a much bigger scheme. Plus, in every posts I made, I had a lot of people who didn't understand even the simple ideas I developed, and sometimes it is because they lack the knowledge of conventional logic. So, am I really going to waste all my time and efforts writing to people who are turned against me, who call me a troll and an idiot? No. Obviously not. I'll say it again, if I am speaking here, it is because I want to talk about the subject, and that if it can help some people from the community of a game I like, why not.

I never outright dismissed your claims. I've given alternate explanations to anything that wasn't pure speculation.

I'm sorry but, what you consider pure speculation might not be pure speculation. You dismissed most of my claims, my explanations and my sources. How am I supposed to explain you something in such conditions? Also, I'm not trying to explain anything, I'm saying things how I know them, I'm not working on your level of thoughts and bringing you up here, nor taking you by the hands, I'm just giving you a glimpse of what it is, for me atleast*.

*and don't start telling me this is just subjective bullshit, I gave you enough explanation, that you rejected, on why I believed it, I've seen people admitting events that were happening in Libya (right now, NATO are only basing their explanations on people's supposed story), I know a good bit of history, enough to understand what world I live in and who is in power, how they hold power, and how those who resist them finish. I know they planned to attack Libya, they've planned every attacks they'd make. Then it will be Syria, they will probably say Bachar Al Assad is a blood dictator, which isn't the case, Iran will come soon enough too. You seem to be ignorant of how information passes in the medias, of who works for who, and who leads this world. If you believe we live in a democracy, and that a democracy for you is the power to the people, then we don't have the same paradigm. I'm not basing myself on my paranoia, I did read books, I did hear many persons talk, persons with important post, persons who were in the heart of the power, persons who predicted things and who explained why it'd happen and how it'd happen, etc, etc..

Also, don't be so quick to assume people in power will abuse it. Being deceitful is a winning strategy up to the point you get caught by those you are fooling, whereas if you are in a position to be honest and you adhere to the truth there's no such risk, plus reality can only prove you right. I'm not saying people don't still take the risk. For example a collapsing government might lie through it's teeth because it no longer has anything to lose and eveything to gain from it. I'm just saying that honesty is a good strategy too and I have no reason to believe that the BBC doesn't generally follow such an honest philosophy.

Now you're talking, the people in power right now have no more choice but to keep on lying. It's their lives that are on the line. If you think saying the truth, in a world where a system of domination has never been so powerful, is safe, then you are wrong. You know why we never see people who are fighting against the system on television? If you don't, ask yourself : who controls television? Also, Gaddafi was resisting to this banking empire, which is why they crushed him. They made him pass for the devil to the eyes of anyone, just as they did before, just as they will do.

Another problem here is that I can ramble about this and pretty much anything for ages but there always comes a point in discussion where I get tired and emotionally detached and I'm trying to keep myself from boring you with that. I think I'll take some time off from this thread again to liven my enthusiasm for it, or else abandon it altogether.

Do what you wish, but ask yourself this : why is NATO trying to bring Democracy, by bombarding libya, while more than 60% of the population of Libya are fighting for Gaddafi?

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

RAK, i realise you must have reasons to believe the things that you do, i'm not going to try and stop you, but do recognise that Garion may not be entirely sincere, it's possible that he's using you as nothing more than a trolling aid, how do you, personally, feel about the trustworthiness of RT and the russian government, i'm curious.

Sorry, what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCP2UcmSRs#t=4m16s

i trust RT as i would any international news source.  i figure that i have to compensate for what the host government and my own want me to think.  from what i've seen of their english language programming, it seems quite a bit like al jezera.  they DO bring up the reports that the "western world" would rather not have in the headlines, but they have their own reasons behind doing so. i doubt my well being or how informed i am about international events is high on that list, if there at all.

as for russia itself...  it is common knowledge the mafia went to university then took over after the USSR fell apart.  i have personally known former citizens of a few former soviet republics.  the secondhand info i have received from these people lead me to believe that the whole of the former ussr is a cesspool of corruption that any sane human would want to escape at all costs.  then again, all of my contacts have been those who have successfully escaped.  at least part of the way.  one of my current "close" inline friends lives in one of those former soviet republics, and he wont stop telling me about how much he hates russians and everything about them.

i'm not sure garion is "trolling" per say.  he is enthusiastic, and lets his emotions overrule his mind sometimes, but this isnt really a bad thing.  its no great thing, countless allegories have been written about men who approach the world from a logical viewpoint as opposed to those who ride the storm tide of their own emotions.  garion and i agree on certain key factors in politics and world events.  whenever i see this, i always like to try to start up or join a conversation with this person.  it's rare i get to talk with others that generally share my views, as i dont make a habit of going anywhere people gather, online of off, to discuss such things.

i have a whole other post for garrion.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

And, to be honest, most of you are fools, and if you can't understand a simple element such as war in Libya, it's obvious that you won't understand the reason truly explain this war, because war in Libya is just a part of a much bigger scheme. Plus, in every posts I made, I had a lot of people who didn't understand even the simple ideas I developed, and sometimes it is because they lack the knowledge of conventional logic. So, am I really going to waste all my time and efforts writing to people who are turned against me, who call me a troll and an idiot? No. Obviously not. I'll say it again, if I am speaking here, it is because I want to talk about the subject, and that if it can help some people from the community of a game I like, why not.

if you begin thinking yourself somehow above your fellow man, you just become more like the oligarchs you despise.  your knowledge does not set you apart or above.

you might also find it easier to hold a conversation about a topic you have interest in, if you were to stop assuming you are the only party present with the capability to tie his own shoes.  basically, no one likes a snotty, superior attitude.  this may be the reason so many assume you to be a troll.

i know that you've seen that i have been able to discuss the subject with both you, who agree with me, and nux and tremulant, who do not.  i think this to be partially from the fact that i have not degraded them in any way, and i have kept my "tone" somewhat level and neutral... as well as can be conveyed through text i suppose.  i also am not out to get anyone to change their lives or change their minds.  if they disagree with my opinion on the matter, it does not offend me.  my opinion is like a possession, not a friend.  furthermore, my dislike of someone else's opinion does not often color my opinion of the person who holds it.

oh, and dont think i was calling you a snob or anything in the first part of the post.  i understand that you are french, and i believe i can adapt to your cultural peculiarities.  you've seemd no more or no less a snob as any other frenchman i've ever met...  at least to my own somewhat earthly american sense of propriety.


hey! i'm joking!  why are you staring at me like that?

[Garion]

if you begin thinking yourself somehow above your fellow man, you just become more like the oligarchs you despise.  your knowledge does not set you apart or above.

This is silly, ever heard of Freud? A man's sensibility can, structurally, be different from the sensibility of another. It also means their understanding of the world will differ, and their determinations (and the energy that comes with determination) will also change. That is just to point out that men aren't alike, and that some are indeed above others. Secondly, ever heard of how work can provide elevation? I thought most men integrated that. I'm a man different than you, and I am not saying I am superior due to my nature (and I'm not saying the opposite). You know, if the homo sapiens sapiens is the man who thinks he thinks, it is because he realized there was something conditioning his conscience, and it made his survival much easier. As for today, surviving in society also requires a certain understanding of who you are, where you come from, how you were structured, etc. Then again, I'd like to point out that, if I believe I am above many of the posters here, on understanding the problems of today, it is surely (and not exclusively) because of the work I made. I'd also like to add that calling people a bunch of fools is by no way an insult. I simply try to use the words that fits what I am trying to say, and this time the word was fool. And I thought it was a pretty weak word, considering Janev and Pazuzu's posts, to only name these two.

you might also find it easier to hold a conversation about a topic you have interest in, if you were to stop assuming you are the only party present with the capability to tie his own shoes.  basically, no one likes a snotty, superior attitude.  this may be the reason so many assume you to be a troll.

There are many slogans that I can interpret differently in this message, but I guess I got the essential. If you think I consider myself to be the only one to be able to do something, you are wrong. First of all, I know many of you have the intelligence to understand, except the judgment might be off right now. If it weren't the case, I wouldn't have given articles for people to read, as it'd be useless. Also, whenever I am giving important informations, and that I'm linking my sources (I gave Thierry Meyssan, Webster Tarpley, Alex Jones, and many more credible sources), I get turned over as if what I gave was useless and without value. How am I supposed to prove what I'm saying in this case? Well, I can do it indirectly, I can show you how the occidental media jump on any information they are given. For exemple, the video of BBC showing India, I wasn't simply linking this video to show there was an error, I was also linking this video to show BBC is passing informations simply because the NTC gives them, as the NTC leader admitted the capture of Tripoli was fake. So what does it mean? It means the mass medias have a bias for the western side, it means they accept to pass the information they are given without questioning. Plus, many medias have also shown the rebels in the green square of Tripoli, the problem is that these videos were taken from a replica of the green square, so it's another form of propaganda made by the Empire on the same subject as the video I gave. And who has interest in lying here? The oligarchs or the Empire if you prefer, this is it. Also Israel (which can be associated with the Empire). There are many agents working for Israel that are called Sayanims, just as Bernard Henry Levy, who TOOK the place of the minister of exterior on Libya's field, and who is basically telling France what they'll do in Libya, eventho 99,xx% of the french population doesn't want to send troops in this war (Democracy you say?). BHL's simple presence to me is a proof that war on Libya is, just like most of the wars made by the axis of good, an evil war made for evil interest.

i know that you've seen that i have been able to discuss the subject with both you, who agree with me, and nux and tremulant, who do not.  i think this to be partially from the fact that i have not degraded them in any way, and i have kept my "tone" somewhat level and neutral... as well as can be conveyed through text i suppose.  i also am not out to get anyone to change their lives or change their minds.  if they disagree with my opinion on the matter, it does not offend me.  my opinion is like a possession, not a friend.  furthermore, my dislike of someone else's opinion does not often color my opinion of the person who holds it.

I wouldn't have been offensive to some persons if they wouldn't have been offensive with me. Surprisingly (no, not really), their attitudes resembled the attitude of the mass medias when they are facing someone who's against the dominant ideology. Altho, I tried to not degrade anyone, I was just rejecting, more or less ethically, their arrogant and insulting posts. For exemple, Tremulant and his silly clan mate called me a troll for giving them sources they did not find credible, obviously for stupid reasons, as they just barked at me. So I don't see why I'd be patient with these guys, nor why I'd be respectful. As I said, I'm not here to convince anyone, and if they try to attack me, I might be patient, but only to a certain point, then they'll see that I can be pretty good at insulting people back. And it isn't due to frustration.

oh, and dont think i was calling you a snob or anything in the first part of the post.  i understand that you are french, and i believe i can adapt to your cultural peculiarities.  you've seemd no more or no less a snob as any other frenchman i've ever met...  at least to my own somewhat earthly american sense of propriety.


hey! i'm joking!  why are you staring at me like that?

French in French is Français, Français has the word "franc" in it, and it means : sincere and direct. English in French is Anglais, Anglais has the word angle in it, and it measn what angle means in english. To me, you can see the french people as sincere and direct persons, and it is close to how the french lived in a monarchy (French monarchy, which is quite different from other monarchy), as the people were serving the good king, so it was a true relation, made of mutual help etc. As for English, as I said it has Angle in it's french version, and to me this resembles a lot more to the character of the merchants, as they are mostly leaned on courtesy, in order to sell more. This is to me obviously a more sinful relation, as the relation is based on abstractions and commerce. Anyway, I won't go further on this and I'll say what I wanted to say, relatively to that : it isn't being snob, nor acting as if I were superior to sincerely say what I want to say, and to say it directly. To me, this method is fundamentally better than twisting my speech so it pleases others, or to keep dealing with their bullshit without calling them what they truly are. Playing the devil's game never works, and god never suggested that we'd transform the nature of our thoughts or of our expression to please others or to be accepted. Then again, I won't go further here, because I could.

[Garion]

i trust RT as i would any international news source.  i figure that i have to compensate for what the host government and my own want me to think.  from what i've seen of their english language programming, it seems quite a bit like al jezera.  they DO bring up the reports that the "western world" would rather not have in the headlines, but they have their own reasons behind doing so. i doubt my well being or how informed i am about international events is high on that list, if there at all.

as for russia itself...  it is common knowledge the mafia went to university then took over after the USSR fell apart.  i have personally known former citizens of a few former soviet republics.  the secondhand info i have received from these people lead me to believe that the whole of the former ussr is a cesspool of corruption that any sane human would want to escape at all costs.  then again, all of my contacts have been those who have successfully escaped.  at least part of the way.  one of my current "close" inline friends lives in one of those former soviet republics, and he wont stop telling me about how much he hates russians and everything about them.

i'm not sure garion is "trolling" per say.  he is enthusiastic, and lets his emotions overrule his mind sometimes, but this isnt really a bad thing.  its no great thing, countless allegories have been written about men who approach the world from a logical viewpoint as opposed to those who ride the storm tide of their own emotions.  garion and i agree on certain key factors in politics and world events.  whenever i see this, i always like to try to start up or join a conversation with this person.  it's rare i get to talk with others that generally share my views, as i dont make a habit of going anywhere people gather, online of off, to discuss such things.

i have a whole other post for garrion.

Ok, I'll answer this too because it's quite bad. Not only am I being accused of enthusiasm, I'm also accused of thinking too emotionally. If you think I jump on informations, you are wrong. I have sources and a good grid of analysis to filter things. I've had a life and I can put a bit of my trust in some persons, yet it doesn't mean I rely on their informations alone. It also doesn't mean it is only their voice that I trust, I simply find some things to be coherent and logical, yet I try not to jump on conclusions. But if you're not aware by now that the Empire is setting war in middle east because they have to, for globalism and to strengthen their grip, then you are the one who let's his mind being overcome by emotions. It's simply understanding the different elements. It's not because there's a new war that propaganda stops existing and that every other aspects in life stop being taken in consideration.

It doesn't matter anyway, with time, some of you might see I was right on most of what I said.

One last thing, I am almost certain that Russia is no more corrupted than the United-States (and Barrack Obama, if that's his true name). Plus, RT isn't made purely by Russians is you look closely. I've seen their reports on Libya (with people that came outside of Russia) and on economy (with Max Keiser), and it was pretty close to the truth. Now I'm not saying they are pure, I'm not saying they hold the light. And poutine isn't so bad, I'd rather have him than another Barrack Obama (Barrack Obama who is the advanced version of George Bush).

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

good, it seems i was able to properly convey most of my ideas.

i dont have a high opinion of freud.  a cigar is a cigar, not a big brown dick.  not all of my problems in life stem from a subconscious desire to fuck my mother.  yes, i understand everybody has their own individual worldview.  i'm willing to allow that you have formed all of your opinions from what to you is the pinnacle of logic and rationality.  however when you express these opinions you come out "sounding" very emotional.  it might not seem that way to you, or even to anyone else reading your posts, 'tis just but another one of my opinions.  calling the general audience here that they are all fools may not be quite much of an insult, but it is a broad generalization.  this sort of thing should be avoided, because it is what you would expect from a mass-media bred simpleton, the kind of cretin that would think things like "all mulems/arabs are terrorists" and "if you are not with us, you are against us".  we should strive to avoid sounding like that, it weakens our position, regardless of however valid our points are.

what i was saying in the second line of mine that you quoted is this:  the people reading your posts have read an arrogant "tone" into them, regardless of your intentions.  this leads to the trading of insults, and your audience comes to think that this textual confrontation was your intention from the beginning.  by flatly ignoring the casual insult to myself, my research, or my sources, i can convey that i am serious about the matter and not just looking to pick a fight.  understand that the whole issue is differing interpretations of world events.  our interpretations are opinion.  yes, our opinions may be supported by facts, historical evidence, and the like, but at the end of the day they are still opinions.

instead of wasting time and weakening your position by stooping to their level and reacting to their provocation, redouble your research efforts.  find a source that they have no choice but to accept as credible.  this is how alex jones works, among others.  you dont have to see many of AJs productions to find at least one example of him using a mainstream news report to back his own position saying something to the effect of - "this is how confident they are, they even openly report this!"

aha!  you automatically assume that as an american, my ancestry is predominantly english!  while i do not deny that the smallest portion of my heritage decends from the shores of the british isles, more of my ancestors were both irish and scotsmen.  slightly less than that portion of my background hails from your native france.  the remaining third were cherokee.  like most of my countrymen, i am quite the mongrel.  oh, and it is my understanding that the original germanic angle tribe were rather more like vikings than merchants.  at least until after they had conquered brittian.

dont think i share the common american opinion that the french are snobs and cowards.  probably a holdover from historical english-french animosity.  i remember the oft forgotten fact that our two republics helped birth each other.  i know why so many roads are named "lafayette", why so many towns are named "fayatteville", and why a statue of the man exists in our nation's capitol, as well as why a statue of "the father of our nation" stands in your capitol.  france and america have historically stood together as allies against tyranny, only in the past century has public opinion shifted to put us culturally at each other's throats.

as to your second post - aside from points previously covered:  yes, i'm fairly certain i have a pretty firm grasp about this war is all about  there are a few more reason you have neglected to mention.  for one, the US is the one who put that dictator into power in the first place.  if memory serves, there was even a embarrassingly unsuccessful coup attempt before we got al quadafi into power.  again, if memory serves, we supported this bloody dictator because he was going to help us combat international terrorism (this was the at the time that aircraft hijackings was in the vogue for "terrorist" organizations.)  so, this is iraq all over again.  so it will be with nearly every nation we find the slightest pretext to start hostilities with, and we will.  remember that tired old quote about the evils of the military-industrial complex?  that's another factor.

wars are good for business.  especially in america, where we outsource almost all of our manufacturing aside from arms production.  wars are good for creating a spectical for people to argue about as more important domestic issues go unnoticed.  if we are trillions in debt, how can it be helping that we're shooting off 20 $100,000 missiles a day, among other expenses?  wars also get the public to relinquish their rights in the name of security.  never mind the fact that either jefferson or franklin said something to the effect of "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither"

i have no doubt america is at least as corrupt as russia.  the difference is, we hide it, they flaunt it.  though it would not surprise me if the situation were reversed in news sources available in cyrillic.  oh, i used to put a lot of stock in what mex keiser said, till he started spewing man-made global warming propaganda.  yes, max knows economics, but he knows jack shit about atmospheric science.  i'll trust the majority of climatologists (with peer reviewed studies) over an economist on that matter.  i recognize the green movement for what it is, a swindle and a distraction.  if max is going to join the swindle, i have no more faith in his words.  he is an entertaining fellow with the ugly truth about economic issues, though.

i'm also glad you see obama as brown bush, which he is.  aside from the spectacle of health care, you would not know he is supposed to be a member of the democratic party...  based on his policies.  you know, wars and expanding military spending are traditionally the domain of the republican party...   the democrats are supposed to cut back on the military.  just another example of the evils of the party system and the false dichotomy that exists within america's two-party system.

i'm glad that you are willing to discuss the matter, really.  but please, keep in mind that the events and facts have more than one interpretation, and that by disagreeing with you does not make either one of us wrong or right.  tell the truth, i dont think any one person can possibly know the whole truth of the matter.  there are just too many variables to consider, to many factors in too many people's lives.  who can possibly know why everyone involved made the decisions they did?  for all i know, oboma can be some sort of hostage, destroying my nation with his proclamations because he fears the retribution that would follow disobedience.  i can only frame my opinions from the scant few "facts" made available to me.

personally, i try to stick with the more mundane answers than to use the more exotic explanations that most people will dismiss as conspiracy theory, regardless of how much historical facts you have supporting your position.

[Tremulant]

For exemple, Tremulant and his silly clan mate called me a troll for giving them sources they did not find credible, obviously for stupid reasons, as they just barked at me.

As you are a known troll in other fields, it's hard for me to take you completely seriously, and when you come out with such gems as suggesting that RT, a russian government funded organisation that is clearly a dedicated propaganda machine, is the most well rounded news source i can turn to, it just makes me wonder...
If you're completely serious and fully support all of the somewhat alternative sources you've referenced then fair enough, but do try to ensure that you provide english language versions if you want people to pay attention to the ideas you're putting forward, and attempt to dig up some references to these sources by credible conventional news outlets, as we have no idea who they are or why they're supposedly trustworthy, at this point.

[Garion]

I will answer the new posts another time, right now I would simply like to post a little video, it is a man who explains how the economical system works (as a Ponzi scheme). He also explains what is happening in the USA right now (the crisis) and what should happen next, he also says it should touch the whole world. Here's the link : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkxar0_l-effondrement-du-systeme-economique-menera-a-la-troisieme-guerre-mondiale_news#from=embediframe

I know it's a pretty small video, so everything might not be clear. Again, I'm not asking to anyone to believe this, but I would like to precise that what is presented in this video, apart maybe for the predictions he made* (when he explained what'd happen or could happen in the future), is usually  what many resistants think, so I'm not the only one. That is simply to say that this video is considerable, because it contains many key ideas that many dissidents around the world share, so if some of you are willing to come closer to this group of people (eventho they are diabolized), then watch the video (it's a strong suggestion). If any of you wish to discuss about the video, I am willing to. I could also hand you some infos on the subjects, if you cared a bit more. Of course, I don't have every answers.